You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION...
,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict in this rear-end collision case were properly denied.  Plaintiff was stopped when the rear-end collision occurred. However, defendant demonstrated that he was unable to stop because of slippery conditions:

On his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that his vehicle was stopped when it was struck in the rear by the defendant’s vehicle… . However, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a nonnegligent explanation; namely, an unavoidable skidding on a snow-covered road … . …

A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 or 4404 may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial, and no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party … .

Here, in light of the defendant’s testimony regarding his speed and distance from the plaintiff’s vehicle just before the collision and the testimony that he immediately applied the brakes when the plaintiff’s brake lights illuminated but nonetheless was caused to skid by snowy road conditions, there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences by which the jury could reach the conclusion that the defendant was not at fault in the happening of the accident … . Miller v Steinberg, 2018 NY Slip Op 05585, Second Dept 8-1-18

NEGLIGENCE (REAR END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (REAR END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/REAR END COLLISIONS (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REAR END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF CRUMBLING ASPHALT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE A SUFFICIENT BASIS, I.E. STATEMENTS BY A CASEWORKER AND THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, TO DETERMINE NEW YORK HAD BEEN DIVESTED OF JURISDICTION IN THIS CUSTODY CASE; MOTHER WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH A COURT HAS THE DISCRETIONARY “INTERESTS OF JUSTICE” POWER TO VACATE ITS OWN ORDER, THAT POWER SHOULD ONLY BE EXERCISED IN UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PRESENT HERE (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER’S INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND EVASIVE TESTIMONY DID NOT AMOUNT TO “FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT” WARRANTING THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AS A SANCTION (SECOND DEPT).
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
RES IPSA LOQUITUR DID NOT APPLY TO APARTMENT CEILING COLLAPSE BECAUSE LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD BREACHED DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

VIDEO SHOWED ELEVATOR DOORS OPERATED PROPERLY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED INJURY FROM... SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR THE APPOINTMENT...